The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1887-01-08

her daughter to DO oil in her power to
screen her from the charge OF theft and to
save her life.
The inquiring judge now demanded that
Marie should be put on the rack, and be
forced to confess her guilt. The court ap-
pointed counsel for the defense, who OPP
posed this demand Ho pointed out that
there was no trustworthy evidence against
Marie. II was true that Herr Lampert had
lost money; but what proof was there that
1t had been taken by the accusedi Was it
possible that rude, uneducated girl could
have contrived theft so craftily that the
smallest trace Of tampering with the lock
and seal was not to be discovered' 1t be-
hooved the accused to show that she had
had the keys and the signot Of Lampert In
her power, and this could not be shown.
He declared that he always carried both
about with him. and never missed either
for single day. How was she to know
that the Golfer contained money, when she
was never prefent when 1t was Opens For
ought she knew, IL might have contained
legal documents II was quite true that
she was allowed to enter the room where
the chest was kept, but she was there al
most invariably attended by Lampert's
daughter, who assisted in the domestic
duties.
II was also true that ducat had been
found in her pocket; but how could Lam
pert swear that 1t was one of his ducatsl
Was his ducat the only one coined this
yearl Were Dutch ducats such rarities
that only his six found their way to Ber-
lint How the ducat came into her pocket
Marie was unable to explan but was it
not probable that the real thief who had
taken the money at the same time put the
ducat into her pocket so as to throw JUS
tice on the wrong scent, and lead 1t to sus-
pect Marie, when the real criminal was,
perhaps, an experienced burg.ar' Ac-
cording to law, torture was only to be en-
ploycd against the accused when evidence
against the prisoner is almost conclusive,
and only confession is needed to make it
absolutely conclusive. He contended that
the proofs OF Marie's guilt were wanting.
There was circumstantial evidence of the
shallowest nature, and none whatever that
was direct.
| According to a-to us-curlous but usual
custom in Germany, tho demand of the
public prosecutor and the contention of the
counsel for the defense were referred to
the legal faculty of the University of
Frankfort-on-Ofer to decide upon. The
university professors examined the evil
dence. and concluded that it made so
heavily against Marie Keller that she must
be subjected to torture to extract from her
the confession required to finally establish
her guilt and Justify sentence of execu-
tion Accordingly the unfortunate girl
was placed on the rack, and her nerves
and muscles so strained, and her joints
dislocated, that in her agony she cried out
| that she was ready to confess. She was re-
moved from the rack and admitted herguilt,
but every effort that was made to obtain
from her an explanation how she had man
aged to extract the money from bag and
box failed. She would admit her guilt,
but not say how she had committed the
theft. But this confession sufflced, and on
June "a, 1871, the unfortunate Marie Keller
was executed.
Unfortunately we have such scanty in
| formation relative to her end that we can
only say that the Lutheran pastor who
prepared her for death found her a prey
to despair, still earnestly protesting her
innocence, retracting her confession,
which she declared was extortcd from
her solely by the uncomfortable agonies to
which she was subjected on the rack.
After awhile, however, the poor creature
became more composed, listened to his ex-
hortations with meekncss and submitted
herself to the prospect Of death in resig-
nation to the will of God. The pastor was
himseil convinced Oh nor guii'' anu aia MS
utmost 10 lnduce her 10 ADMIT the !ustlce
OF her sentence put 70 this ne couiu no. 10.
Dring her. She wouid con1ess again II
laid on the rack, Dut never OH ~. Sne lor.
gave her enemies, though sue a,d hoc
SNOW WHO .hey Souiu oe, nevoruueiSss'
sue was sure she hau onc or more, or eise,
US sno ooh.ehueu' INV .oui" 'A' "u0"'
nave COINS in'o hcr poche''
She was nanged IN the presence OF
great crowd In the Bruder strasse' oppo-
site the door OF tne mousse "here inc thei.
had peen commltteu-Deiore Vne eyes oi
Lampert VINO naa oeen ropDeo' Oh MS
wi1e, VINO had vainly enoeaVoreu 10 save
her, and OF the daughter, VINO had oeen
with her daiiy When inc unhappy girl
cleaned the room where the money Dox
was. Inc poor CIR! hao not oeeh long oeao
before somehow 1eehng arose among the
people OF berIh that aiter al, IN spite oi
the evidence against ner, IN splte Oh ncr
own coniession' Marie h-eier was gum
less, anu Ihata u Juuiciai ihuruer nau peeu
commltteu. Inc evidence was oiscusseo
ana lts weakness was seen. Inc couhsel
!or tne prisoner the examining judge .ne
iegai 1aculty OF FRANKFORT inc court, the
pubic generally, hau missed seeing one
httie feature IN tne case whicn, wheI
! caugnt sight OIL comPietely ai1ereo it'
complextloh-
why was IL that the mlstress oi pool
Marie hao oHered ner mother Ihe money u
. reIunu LamPeru MS loss: was the oIel
maze OUT OF charity' IL Will oe remenl
, bered that When frau Keller narrated Uni!